Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Good Politics, Bad Policy

So Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary, but affirms his intention to run as an independent. Hope he does -- and the margin of his defeat was small enough that he probably will, and given the poor quality of the Republican candidate, he's likely to win.

No doubt the outcome of the primary is an unfortunate result for the country as a whole. Other Democrats, eager to escape Lieberman's fate, will take this as a sign that they, too, must embrace increasingly radicalized positions on the war. Given the polarization that will cause -- and the potential impact on the war in Congress -- that's a terrible outcome for the country.

But politically, it's good news. An independent Lieberman will be freer to join with the Senate Republicans when he wants to; what's more, Americans in the center have an opportunity to see first hand how radicalized the Democratic Party has become in the war on terror -- which may keep some, otherwise disgruntled with the Republicans, from pulling the Dem lever this fall. It's already hard to support a Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers; it's likewise scary to think of a Senate full of Lamonts.

It's bad news for Hillary Clinton, in particular. It shows her that her projected game plan of triangulation isn't going to be tolerated by the hot-white activists who are controlling Democratic nominating contests. And at least that's one piece of news that's good for the country AND good political news.

Now it's confirmed. With Lieberman's loss it's clear that within the party of the Democrats the inmates have completely taken over the asylum. Lieberman will win in Novemeber but Hillary may never recover.

Radicalized positions on the war? Over 60% of the American people agree that the war is a failure and we should start pulling out of Iraq. When did it become "radical" to agree with the majority in a democracy?

"When did it become 'radical' to agree with the majority in a democracy?" When did we start running national policy by taking surveys of small, allegedly random samples of the general population providing sound bites for casual consumption? (Oh. Wait. I was forgetting about the Clinton administration. Never mind.)

And remember this guy didn't have the class to resign his senate seate when he ran for VP in 2000, and he was active in trying to steal the election in Fla to the point of questioning ballots from military personnel overseas.

A typical incumbent who thought he could spend enough K-Street money lying about that hell hole he helped create in Iraq and fool the people one more time. No surprise that he is jumping ship for one more shot at holding his prescious seat of power even though the people have clearly shown they have had their fill of failed Bush policies and corporate cronyism.

It is clear that Carol is such an extreme warmongering neocon that she would think even Ronald Reagan and the former Bush were weak radical treasonous cowards.

I have been a regular poster here for quite a spell. And I have put many good arguements defending my conservative stance and the positions Carol has stated in my posts. As a result, I have been called far worse then what I said by simply stating the obvious s......y of the left's remarks.

"Taking the fight to the terrorists" = invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and toppling a regime that was a primary impediment to Al Qaeda's desire for a fundamentalist Islamic regime across the Middle East and the one country checking Iran's dominance in the area.

But hey, it doesn't matter if the strategy is stupid and the results directly contrary to our stated aims -- we get to say we're fighting terrorists!